Online peer review system and method

ABSTRACT

An online document management system is disclosed. In one embodiment, the online document management system comprises: one or more editorial computers operated by one or more administrators or editors, the editorial computers send invitations and manage peer review of document submissions; one or more system computers, the system computers maintain journals, records of submitted documents and user profiles, and issue notifications; and one or more user computers; the user computers submit documents or revisions to the document management system; wherein one or more of the editorial computers coordinate with one or more of the system computers to migrate one or more documents between journals maintained by the online document management system.

FIELD OF INVENTION

The present invention relates in general to online scientific peerreview systems, and in particular to a novel online journal managementand publishing solution which is designed to create a flexible,intuitive, intelligent and enterprise scale user-centered solution whichis designed in a modular fashion to easily and quickly add new featuresand offer integration points.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PRIOR ART

There exist a number of online scientific peer review systems. All ofthese systems offer the same basic functions such as interfaces forauthors to submit, upload or download articles related to a journal, aswell as interfaces for reviewers to review the articles, and for editorsto accept or reject articles. A summary of the major existing onlinescientific peer review systems is provided below.

The first system is an open source online journal publishing systemcalled the “Open Journal System”. It is sponsored by the Simon FraserUniversity. An online user's guide is available at:http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/docs/userguide/2.3.3/index.html. The Open JournalSystem provides interfaces for users to upload/download submissions andit supports multiple languages. It also provides an interface forreviewers to manage the submission under review.

The second system is a commercially-available online manuscriptsubmission and peer review software system called “Editorial Manager”from Aries Systems. An online user's guide is available athttp://www.editorialmanager.com/homepage/home.htm. The Editorial Managersoftware manages submissions, editorial functions and peer review. Ituses a customized interface to transfer accepted manuscripts topublishers such as Oxford University Press, Elsevier, etc. It alsotracks referee activity, and automatically emails appropriate reminders.

Aries Systems also partners with a company called “iThenticate”.iThenticate has a commercially-available software called “iThenticatePlagiarism Checker” for plagiarism detection. Because iThenticate has apartnership with Aries Systems, it apparently allows Aries' editorialand peer review system to detect plagiarism.

The third online journal publishing system is a commercially-availablepeer review journal management system called “ScholarOne Manuscripts”from Thomson Reuters. The ScholarOne Manuscripts system also usesiThenticate Plagiarism Checker for plagiarism detection. It enablesusers to execute task assignments, e-mail reminders, and web-basedresearch tools automatically. It also captures data and files inmultiple languages and formats and converts them into PDF or HTMLdocuments on the fly. It also allows the user to enter customizedjournal article metadata.

All of these existing systems are, to some degree, not convenient touse. For example, these existing systems only offer a shared databaseamong sister journals, whereas a shared database is not available fornon-sister journals, for example, journals that are not owned by relatedentities. Thus, it is impossible for these existing systems toaccommodate the user's request to switch from a sister journal to anon-sister journal. Moreover, none of these systems provide convenientinterfaces to facilitate the communications between editors, users andreviewers. In addition, it is difficult to add new features to thecurrent online journal publishing systems.

There is therefore a need to develop a more flexible and convenientonline journal publishing system.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

One aspect of the invention is directed to an online document managementsystem. The system comprises one or more editorial computers operated byone or more administrators or editors, the editorial computers sendinvitations and manage review, such as peer review, of documentsubmissions; one or more system computers, the system computers maintainjournals, records of submitted documents and user profiles, and issuenotifications; and one or more user computers; the user computers submitdocuments or revisions to the document management system. In oneembodiment, the one or more of said editorial computers coordinate withone or more of the system computers to migrate one or more documentsbetween journals maintained by the online document management system.

Another aspect of the invention is directed to a method of managingdocuments submitted online. The method comprises: initiating invitationsfrom one or more editorial computers operated by one or more journaleditors to one or more user computers operated by one or more users onone or more journals; submitting documents from one or more of the usercomputers to one or more system computers; the system computersmaintaining journals, records of submitted documents and user profiles;providing comments on the submitted documents from one or more computersoperated by one or more reviewers; and migrating one or more submitteddocuments between journals maintained by one or more of the systemcomputers.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 schematically depicts a user registration/deactivation processthat is implemented on one or more computers in one or more networksaccording to one embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 2 schematically depicts a user login process that is implemented onone or more computers in one or more networks according to oneembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 3 schematically depicts a submission process that is implemented onone or more computers in one or more networks according to oneembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 4 schematically depicts an editorial preparation process that isimplemented on one or more computers in one or more networks accordingto one embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 5 schematically depicts a peer review process that is implementedon one or more computers in one or more networks according to oneembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 6 schematically depicts a decision preparation process that isimplemented on one or more computers in one or more networks accordingto one embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 7 schematically depicts a revision process that is implemented onone or more computers in one or more networks according to oneembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 8 schematically depicts a waterfall process that is implemented onone or more computers in one or more networks according to oneembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 9 schematically depicts a group submissions process that isimplemented on one or more computers in one or more networks accordingto one embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 10 schematically depicts a training/journal administration processthat is implemented on one or more computers in one or more networksaccording to one embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 11 schematically depicts a journals leaving process that isimplemented on one or more computers in one or more networks accordingto one embodiment of the invention. The journals leaving process may betriggered when a journal leaves the publishing system.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

FIG. 1 schematically depicts a user registration/deactivation processthat is implemented on one or more computers in one or more networksaccording to one embodiment of the invention. The userregistration/deactivation process enables a user to register ordeactivate with the journal publishing system. Once the process startsat step 1110, it may encounter one or more of the following foursituations:

1) an Editor sends an invitation to a user or a Reviewer;

2) an invited (or unsolicited) user initiates the process to registerwith the system

3) an invited (or unsolicited) user signs-in to deactivate

4) a system administrator or an Editor decides to deactivate a user

The process steps that are involved in the 4 situations above areexplained below.

First, if, in step 1130, an Editor sends an invitation to a user orReviewer, the process moves to step 1140 to check the status of theinvitation. If the invitation is rejected, then the process moves tostep 1190, where a notification is sent to the system administrator orthe Editor, and the process will stop its execution. If the invitationis accepted by a user/Reviewer, then the process moves to step 1170 towait for a user action. If the user/Reviewer decides to register withthe journal publishing system of the invention, then the process goes tostep 1180 to prompt the user/Reviewer to enter his/her Email Id (such asan email address). In step 1200, the process verifies whether the EmailId already exists in the system's record. If so, a notification is sentin step 1210 to the user/Reviewer and the process loops back to step1180. Here, the user/Reviewer may choose to re-register using adifferent Email Id, or user the existing Email Id to sign-in. If theuser/Review chose to sign-in, then in step 1280 a web-page is displayedto the user/Reviewer to provide an interface for the user/Review toperform other actions. In one embodiment, the web-page is the defaultjournal homepage. The web-page may also be a user-specific homepageshowing user-preferred information, such as information regardinguser-preferred journals in the system. In another embodiment, theweb-page may be a page indicated in the invitation or a user-preferredwebsite.

If, in step 1200, the process determines the Email Id does not exist inthe system's record, then in step 1290 the user/Reviewer is prompted toenter a password. A CAPTCHA test is then generated by the system in step1300 and the user/Review is prompted to enter the necessary informationrequired by the CAPTCHA KEY. In step 1310, the process enters or updatesthe system record for this newly entered user data. In step 1320, theprocess enters or updates data for specific journals in connection withthe new record Then, in step 1330, the user/Reviewer is prompted toenter his/her preferences. For example, the preferred language, thepreferred way of communication (e.g. emails, phone call, etc.),preferred reviewers, preferred webpage (landing page) after signing-in,etc. Next, in step 1340, the user/Reviewer is prompted to review andconfirm that he/she will comply with a set of Regulations. In oneembodiment, the Regulations include the Statement on Ethics inPublishing. Then, step 1350 checks if the registration is complete. Ifso, the process moves to step 1370 to issue a successful registrationnotification that will be displayed on the user's sign-in page in step1380. If not, the user/Reviewer will be notified that the registrationis incomplete in step 1360.

If, in step 1160, an uninvited user initiates the process, then theprocess moves to step 1170 to determine the user action and then movesto step 1180 or 1280 depending on whether the user action isregistration or sign-in.

If, in step 1150, a user signs in to deactivate from the system, theprocess then executes a deactivate procedure in step 1220. Then in step1230, it prompts the user to confirm deactivation. A CAPTCHA key isgenerated by the process in step 1240 and the user is prompted to enterit. Then, in step 1250, the current user status is captured by theprocess and the system administrator is notified in step 1260 that theuser should be marked inactive. In one embodiment, the user is promptedto enter the reason for deactivation in step 1270, and the results ofsteps 1260 and 1270 are used in step 1370 for the process to issue adeactivation notification that will be displayed on the user's sign-inpage in step 1380.

If, in step 1120, a system administrator or an Editor decides todeactivate a user, the process will directly move to step 1230, whichprompts the system administrator or Editor for confirmation. A CAPTCHAkey is generated by the process in step 1240 and the systemadministrator or Editor is prompted to enter it. The process then goesto steps 1260, 1270, 1370, 1380 as described above.

FIG. 2 schematically depicts a user login process that is implemented onone or more computers in one or more networks according to oneembodiment of the invention. The user login process enables a user togain access to the journal publishing system.

According to FIG. 2, in step 1510, a user initiates the login process byentering the URL of the online journal publishing system, or by clickingon a link in an email that is directing the login webpage, or by otherways enabled by the journal publishing system. Then, in step 1520, thejournal publishing system determines if the user has already signed-in.If so, the process moves to step 1700 where a corresponding web page isdisplayed to the user. The web page may be a user preferred web pagedefined by the user, or a default journal web page set by the journaladministrator, or a “task based” web page whose content depends on thetasks the user intends to work on, or a “general task page” showing alist of tasks for the system administrator or service manager to workon, or a journal home page with links to journal recommended tools.Next, in step 1710, the user can navigate to any other web page withinthe journal based on the user permission set by the systemadministrator.

If step 1530 determines that the user has not signed-in, then in step1530 the process check if the user has been identified. If so, theprocess in step 1540 displays a sign-in page showing the user ID and ablank password field. If not, the process in step 1550 displays asign-in page with blank user ID and password fields. The user can thensign in by entering the user ID and password in step 1650. Afterreceiving the user ID and password, the process in step 1690 verifies ifthe information entered is correct. If yes, then the process moves tostep 1700. If the verification fails, the process moves to step 1660,where a “sign-in failed” message is displayed and the user is directedto step 1650 and is prompted to retry the user ID and password. If theverification step 1690 finds that the password has expired, the user isthen notified in step 1670 to reset the password. After the user resetsthe password, the user is directed to the login page of step 1650 tore-enter the user ID and password. If the verification step 1690 findsthat the user has not been registered, the user is then directed to step1680 to register.

In one embodiment, the sign-in page has a “forgot user ID/password”link, and step 1560 is invoked to see if the user clicks on such a link.If the user forgets his/her user ID/password, then the process moves toa sub-process to retrieve/reset user ID and password. If the user ID isforgotten (step 1570), then the process moves to step 1590 to prompt theuser to contact customer support and a customer support procedure 1600may be developed to resolve the issue. For example, customer supportwill retrieve the user ID if the user provides other information (suchas social security number, etc) that verifies his/her identity. If theuser forgot his/her password, the user may also be directed to customersupport in step 1590 and then uses the customer support procedure toreset or retrieve the password. Alternatively, the user could beprompted to answer certain pre-set password question(s) in step 1610.Then step 1630 determines if the user's answer(s) are correct. If so,the processor moves to step 1640, where a password reset link is sent tothe user's email ID that is provided at registration. After resettingthe password, the user is directed to the login page of step 1650. Ifthe user's answer(s) are not correct, then in step 1620 a “passwordretrieval failed” message will be displayed and the user is directed tostep 1590 to contact customer support.

FIG. 3 schematically depicts a submission process that is implemented onone or more computers in one or more networks according to oneembodiment of the invention. The process starts in step 2100. In oneembodiment, the submission process may be initiated by an authorreceiving an invitation from an Editor 2110, an author navigates to ajournal home page 2120, or an author finds the journal home page fromthe journal publishing system's home page 2130. In one embodiment, thesteps 2110-2130 may be executed in parallel. After the author finds thejournal's homepage, the process in step 2140 checks if the author isregistered. If yes, the author is prompted to login in step 2160. If no,then the author is prompted to register first in step 2150, and then isdirected to the login page in step 2160. After login, the author isprompted to enter invitation information in step 2170, and then toselect article type in step 2180. Based on the type selected, the authorcan view and use certain templates to format his/her article beforesubmission in step 2190. If an author uses certain templates, certainmetadata can be extracted before the author manually enters the data.Then, in steps 2200 and 2210, the user uploads the mandatory andsupplemental files of the article to the journal publishing system.

After uploading the article, the author may be prompted to enterclassification and key word information of the submitted article in step2220. Then, in step 2230, the author is prompted to fill in a submissionform. In step 2240, the author is prompted to fill in a non-submissionform. In one embodiment, the non-submission form requests additionalinformation not directly related to the content of the submittedarticle, e.g. the name of the entity that provides funding to theresearch that has resulted in the article. In step 2250, the author thenenters funding body identification information. Then in step 2260, theauthor is prompted to specify co-authors, if any. In step 2270, theauthor may suggest or oppose reviewers, and in step 2280, the author maymake suggestions of choice of Editors. The process then moves to step2290 where the author may be asked to agree to a ‘Water Fall Agreement”which governs copyright issues, and potential submission to otherjournals. Then, in step 2300, a Common Readable Format file (CRF) of thearticle is created for review. In one embodiment, the CRF is HTMLformat. Rendering the article in HTML format makes the online journalpublishing system faster and lighter, and more compatible with mobileapplications.

The journal publishing system assigns a system Id 2310 and File Type2320 to the article submitted in steps 2200 and 2210. The system alsoperforms a series of checks in step 2330. In one embodiment, thesechecks include a plagiarism check (the result of plagiarism check maynot be displayed only to the editor), a completeness check, an artworkquality check, a reference linking check, a duplication submissioncheck, and a metadata errors check. These checks may also include aLaTex errors check, if the article is written in LaTex language. Theremay also be a CRF conversion error check to make sure the CRF conversionof the article is done properly.

After these checks, the author in step 2340 reviews the results of thechecks, and reviews the CRF as converted in step 2350. The process thenasks the author if he/she wishes to modify the article. If no, then theprocess moves to step 2440, where the author is asked to view and accepta publishing ethics document. Then, the author makes the finalsubmission in step 2430. The publishing system will then sync thesubmission data with the author's user profile data in step 2400, send asubmission notification to the author in step 2410, and assign asubmission Id to the article being submitted in step 2420. If the authorwishes to modify the article, the author will have a chance to updatethe article and fix errors in step 2370, manually assign files toappropriate categories in step 2380 and edit metadata of the article instep 2390.

FIG. 4 schematically depicts an editorial preparation process that isimplemented on one or more computers in one or more networks accordingto one embodiment of the invention. The process starts in step 2510,where the online publishing system makes an initial assignment ofservice manager or editor according to certain rules or system settings.In step 2520, the service manager/editor performs a technical check onthe submitted article. In one embodiment, the technical check may beoutsourced to an external entity. In step 2530, the servicemanager/editor decides whether to return the article to the author forcorrection. If yes, the article is returned in step 2540. If no, theservice manager/editor decides in step 2550 if technical screening ofthe article is required, and if so, technical screening is performed instep 2560. Next, the service manager/editor decides in step 2570 iflanguage editing is required, and if so, language editing is performedin step 2580. In one embodiment, the language editing may be outsourcedto an external entity. In step 2590, the service manager/editor assignsthe editor(s) to handle the current submission, and a notification issent to the publishing system in step 2600. Next, the servicemanager/editor reviews the results of technical checks. In oneembodiment, these checks include artwork quality check 2610, metadatacheck 2620, LaTex error checks 2630 and CRF conversion checks 2640.

After reviewing these results, the service manager/editor may, in step2700, manually assign other specialized editor(s) to the submittedarticle. The publishing system may also, in step 2650, automaticallyassign other (often specialized) editor(s) to the submitted article,based on rules. Next, the service manager/editor reviews the results oftechnical screening (if any). In one embodiment, these results includethe results of completeness check 2660, the results of reference linkingcheck 2670, the results of plagiarism check 2680 and the results ofduplicate check 2690. After reviewing these results, the servicemanager/editor may, in step 2710, manually assign other specializededitor(s) to the submitted article. The publishing system may also, instep 2650, automatically assign other (often specialized) editor(s) tothe submitted article

Next, in step 2720, the service manager/editor edits theclassification/keywords of the submitted article. Then, in step 2730,the service manager/editor decides whether the submitted article shouldbe peer-reviewed. If yes, the article is sent to the peer review processin step 2740. If it is decided that the article be returned to theauthor for correction, then the article is returned in step 2760. Or, ifit is decided that the article is to be rejected, then in step 2750 thearticle is rejected. In step 2770, the publishing system sendsnotifications to the author regarding the service manager/editor'sdecision in steps 2740-2760.

FIG. 5 schematically depicts a peer review process that is implementedon one or more computers in one or more networks according to oneembodiment of the invention. The process involves the editor, thepublishing system and the reviewer. The process starts when the editorinvites the reviewer to review a submitted article. In step 3010, theeditor may instruct the publishing system to send ad hoc invitationemails to many potential reviewers. The editor may also in step 3020,first search for reviewers by taking into account the author's preferredreviewers. The publishing system then displays the search results basedon the editor's search criteria in step 3040. Then, the editor in step3050 chooses the reviewer to invite based on the displayed searchresults. The publishing system, in step 3030, sends an invitation emailto the reviewers selected by the editor. In one embodiment, the searchfor reviewers is carried out using the People Finder technologydescribed in Netherlands patent no. 20001015151, titled “Apparatus,Method and Software for generating a Knowledge Profile and the Searchfor Corresponding Knowledge Profiles”. The content of this patent isincorporated in its entirety herein. After receiving an invitationemail, a reviewer may decide to accept or reject the invitation (asshown in steps 3200-3220 for multiple reviewers). If the revieweraccepts the invitation, then in step 3230 the publishing systemdetermines if the reviewer is registered. If yes, the reviewer mayproceed to login in step 3240. If no, the reviewer is directed to aregistration process, such as the registration process shown in FIG. 1.After login, the reviewer may have the following options as shown instep 3260. For example, the reviewer may be given access to thesubmitted article. The reviewer may also be able to communicate withother reviewers or editors or invite other co-reviewers. The reviewermay also be given access to certain scientific journals, includingthrough services such as Scopus and ScienceDirect. Then, in step 3270,the reviewer reviews and annotates the submitted article. In a preferredembodiment, the system allows for annotation of the online version ofthe article. The reviewer may also have the option to recommend languageediting. If review is completed, the reviewer in step 3310 submits oruploads the review comments to the publishing system. The reviewer mayalso terminate the review voluntarily.

If a reviewer decides to reject an invitation, then the system in step3060 notifies the editor about the rejection. The system in step 3080checks if the editor has selected alternative reviewer(s). If yes, thenin step 3070 the system sends an invitation email to the alternativereviewer. If no, the process will wait for the editor to send an ad hocinvitation or to search for reviewer(s).

After receiving the review comments, the publishing system in step 3090sends a notification email to the editor, collates review comments instep 3100 if the comments are done in CRF, and sends the comments to theeditor. After receiving the comments, the editor in step 3110manages/validates the review comments, and in step 3120 rates thereviewers based on the comments submitted. Then, in step 3130, theeditor decides if changes need to be made in the submitted article. Ifno, the article is passed to a decision process in step 3140. If yes,the editor in step 3150 requests the publishing system to notify theauthor that changes are requested. Then, the publishing system in step3160 sends a notification email to the author and the article is passedto a revision process in step 3170.

FIG. 6 schematically depicts a decision preparation process that isimplemented on one or more computers in one or more networks accordingto one embodiment of the invention. The decision process may beinitiated by the following situations: 1) an author submits an article(step 3510); 2) peer review of an article is completed (step 3520); 3)reassessment of a prior decision (step 3530) and 4) an author submits arevised article (step 3540). If the editor receives a submission from anauthor, then in step 3550 the editor decides if the article should berejected without review. If no, the editor in step 3560 decides if peerreview is required, and if so the process moves to the peer reviewprocess in step 3580, and then returns to step 3520. If the articleshould be rejected without review, then in step 3690 the publishingsystem sends a notification email to other editor(s), the author andreviewers regarding the rejection. Next, in step 3700 the systemdetermines if the editor and author have initiated a “waterfall” processto transfer the article to another journal. If yes, then the waterfallprocess will process in step 3710. If no, the article is marked fordeletion in step 3720, and then in step 3730 the system determines ifthe author has requested reassessment. If the author has requestedreassessment, the process moves to step 3530. If the author has notrequested reassessment, the article is deleted in step 3740 based onjournal settings and retention policy.

If the decision process is triggered by situations 2-4 above, then theprocess moves to step 3560, where the editor decides if peer review isrequired. If review is triggered, then the process moves to the peerreview process in step 3580. If review is not triggered, in step 3570the editor decides if he/she will view the review comments (annotations)online or offline. If offline, then in step 3660 the publishing system'sdownload utility is triggered and in step 3670 the editor downloadscomments and submitted articles either in native format or in PDF. Ifonline, the editor will view the article with comment annotations in CRFin step 3590.

After reviewing the comments, the editor in step 3600 decides if changesare required. If changes are required, the editor in step 3650 makes adecision to request revision and sends the decision to the publishingsystem. The publishing system in step 3680 sends a notification email tothe author for revision. The author, then, in step 3750 decides ifhe/she would agree or decline to revise the submission. If he/she agreesto revise, then the process moves to a revision process in step 3760,and then returns to step 3540. If the author declines to revise, thenthe process moves to a withdraw process in step 3770.

If the editor decides that no change is required in step 3600, then instep 3610, the editor decides whether to accept or reject the articlebased on the comments. If the editor decides to reject, then in step3690, the publishing system sends a notification email to othereditor(s), the author and reviewers regarding the rejection, and theprocess moves to step 3700 as described above. If the editor decides toaccept, then in step 3620, the files related to the article are markedfor publication. Next, in step 3630 comments are updated to productionand in step 3640, the output is marked to be split. The publishingsystem then, in step 3780, sends a notification email to othereditor(s), the author and reviewers.

FIG. 7 schematically depicts a revision process that is implemented onone or more computers in one or more networks according to oneembodiment of the invention. The process starts from step 4010, wherethe publishing system sends an email notification to the authorregarding the editor's request for revision. The author then proceeds tologin in step 4050, and navigates to his/her submission in step 4040.The author then views the review comments, either offline or online, instep 4060 and decides in step 4070 if he/she will submit revision. Ifno, then the publishing system in step 4030 sends a notification to theeditor and the process moves to a decision process in step 4020. If yes,then the author in step 4100 accepts or clarifies comments on CRF andcreates a revised version in step 4110. Then, in step 4120 the filesassociated with the submitted article are marked for copying from theprevious version, and the new or updated files are uploaded to thepublishing system in step 4130. The publishing system may assign filetype in step 4080 and assign system ID to the submitted files in step4190.

Optionally, the author may also upload new or updated supplemental filesto the publishing system in step 4140, update classification/keywords instep 4150, update co-author in step 4160, update funding body in step4170, perform submission form update in step 4180 and non-submissionform update in step 4190, as well as suggest or oppose reviewers in step4200. After the results of steps 4140-4200 above are uploaded to thepublishing system, the system may optionally perform a number of checkson the updated submission in step 4210. These checks may includecompleteness check, reference linking check, metadata errors check,artwork quality check, CRF conversion errors check and LaTex errorscheck.

The author may review the results of the above checks in step 4240 andreview the CRF in step 4250. Next, in step 4260, the author decides ifhe/she wishes to modify the submission based on the results of thechecks. If no, the author makes a final submission of the revision instep 4300. The publishing system then sends a notification to the editorin step 4230, and syncs the revision data with the author's user profiledata in step 4220. The process then moves to the decision process instep 4020. If the author decides to modify the submission based on theresults of the checks, then the author in step 4270 updates and fixesthe errors and may choose to re-check the files. Or, the author maymanually group the files in step 4280 and submit for a re-check. Or, theauthor may edit the metadata of the files and submit for a re-check.

FIG. 8 schematically depicts a waterfall process that is implemented onone or more computers in one or more networks according to oneembodiment of the invention. The waterfall process is the transfer ofsubmitted articles from one journal to another journal. The waterfallprocess may be initiated by an editor of a sending journal who decidesto waterfall a submission to a receiving journal, as shown in step 6030.After learning the editor's decision, the publishing system thennotifies the editor(s) of the receiving journal in step 6040. Theeditor(s) of the receiving journal in step 6050 decides whether toaccept the submission. If no, then the editor of the sending journal isnotified in step 6070 and the waterfall process will end. If yes, thepublishing system in step 6060 checks if the author has agreed towaterfall his/her rejected submission. If no, then the publishing systemin step 6020 asks the author's permission to waterfall the submission.If the author declines to waterfall, then in step 6010 the editor isnotified of the author's decision not to waterfall. If the authoraccepts waterfall, then the publishing system in step 6080 notifies theauthor that the submission will be waterfalled to a particular journal.If the publishing system in step 6060 finds the author has agreed towaterfall his/her rejected submission, then the process also moves tostep 6080 above. Following step 6080, the editor of the receivingjournal in step 6160 views the submission and metadata (CRF or nativeformat). Then, in step 6170, the editor decides if he/she will requirereviewer comments from the sending journal. If no, then the editor willdecide on the waterfalled submission in step 6230. If the editor willrequire the reviewer comments, then in step 6180, the publishing systemchecks if the reviewer has opted to block the transfer of reviewcomments. If yes, the system notifies the editor of the reviewer'sdecision to block comments in step 6220, and the editor decides in step6210 whether to proceed without review comments. If no, the waterfallprocess will end. If yes, the process moves to step 6230 above. If thereviewer does not block the comments, then in step 6190, the editorreviews the editor/review comments and the process moves to step 6230above.

After step 6230, the editor decides to reject or accept the submissionfor waterfall. If the submission is rejected, then in step 6100 theauthor is notified of the rejection, and in step 6110, the authordecides whether to waterfall the submission to another journal. If no,then the waterfall process will end. If yes, then in step 6130 thepublishing system may provide journal recommendations to the author viathe journal recommendation tool, and the author may select a journal towaterfall in step 6140. The publishing system then notifies the editorof the receiving journal in step 6150. The process then moves to step6160 above.

The journal recommendation tool is operable to recommend a journal tothe author if the journal has published articles which have a highsimilarity with the newly submitted article. In one embodiment, thesystem determines whether a journal's published articles have a highsimilarity to the newly submitted article by creating a fingerprint ofall published articles of a journal, and then comparing them to thefingerprint of the submission. The similarity can be expressed as amatch rate. The list of recommended journals can be initially sortedbased on the match rate. Optionally, the user is able to view thefollowing aspects of a journal: Impact factor, Speed of publication andAcceptance rate.

If the editor decides to accept a submission for waterfall in step 6230,then in step 6240, the editor decides whether to require additionalinformation from the author. If no, then the publishing system in step6320 assigns submission Id to the submission being waterfalled, notifiesthe author in step 6340, and moves the process to the editorial processin step 6330. If the system requires additional information from theauthor to submit to this specific journal, then in step 6250 thepublishing system notifies the author for additional information. Theauthor in step 6260 decides whether to submit requested information. Ifno, then the publishing system notifies the editor of the receivingjournal in step 6350 and the waterfall process ends. If yes, then theauthor in step 6270 submits the additional information. The publishingsystem, then, in step 6280 performs various checks as described above,assigns system Id and file Id in step 6290 and generates a CRF in step6300. The author in step 6310 views the CRF and submits the submissionin step 6315. The process then moves to step 6320 above.

The waterfall process may also be triggered by an author when he/shewithdraws a submission, as shown in step 6090. If so, the author isprompted to decide if he/she wants to waterfall the submission toanother journal as shown in step 6110 above. Alternatively, when thepublishing system sends an author a rejection notice (following aneditor's decision based on peer review), as shown in step 6120, then theprocess moves to step 6100 above FIG. 9 schematically depicts a groupsubmissions process that is implemented on one or more computers in oneor more networks according to one embodiment of the invention. As showin FIG. 9, the editor may select one or more submissions in step 8010.Then, in step 8020, the editor decides whether to designate the selectedsubmissions as Relationship or Group. If the editor decides to create arelationship (not group) for the selected submissions, then the processmoves to step 8190, where the editor decides whether to create a newrelationship. If the editor wants to designate the submissions as agroup, then the editor checks in step 8030 if the submissions alreadybelong to a group. If yes, the editor is so informed and the processends. If no, the editor in step 8050 decides whether to create a newgroup. If no, the editor in step 8130 selects the existing group. Ifyes, then the editor in step 8060 checks if a group template exists andin step 8070 creates a new group from the master group template. If no,then the editor in step 8150 creates a group template, inherits metadatain step 8160 and the process moves to step 8070 above. After the newgroup template is created, the editor in step 8080 specifies the groupname, and specifies the group type in step 8090. Then in step 8100, theeditor may add other submissions to the new or selected group. Thepublishing system then tags the submissions as a group in step 8110.Then, in step 8120, the system executes the workflow steps such as thevarious checks as described before.

If the editor selects an existing group, as shown in step 8130, then instep 8140 the editor chooses the actions on the selected group. Ifhe/she chooses to add other submissions to the group, then the processmoves to step 8100 above. If he/she chooses to remove certainsubmissions from the group, then the publishing system in step 8190untags the submissions to be removed from the group and the groupsubmissions process ends. If the editor chooses to view or edit groupmetadata, then the publishing system in step 8170 presents a view of thegroup and allows the editor to edit the metadata of the group. Theeditor can also deactivate a group from the view. Then, in step 8180 thesystem synchronizes system data if the group's metadata is changed anddeactivates the group if the editor chooses to do so. The process thenends.

If the editor decides in step 8190 to create a new relationship for theselected submissions, then in step 8200 the editor creates the newrelationship and may also add submissions to the new relationship. Next,in step 8210, the editor specifies a name for the new relationship. Thepublishing system then tags the submissions as a relationship asspecified by the editor in step 8270. If the editor decides in step 8190not to create a new relationship for the selected submissions, then instep 8220 the editor selects an existing relationship and in step 8230chooses actions on the selected relationship. If the editor chooses toadd submissions, then the process moves to step 8270 above. If theeditor chooses to view relationship or edit relationship metadata, thenthe publishing system in step 8240 presents a view of the group andallows the editor to edit the metadata of the group. The editor can alsodeactivate a group from the view. Then, in step 8250 the systemsynchronizes system data if the group's metadata is changed anddeactivates the group if the editor chooses to do so. The process thenends. The editor may also choose to remove certain submissions from therelationship. If that is the case, then the publishing system in step8260 untags these submissions to be removed from the relationship, andthe process ends.

FIG. 10 schematically depicts a training/journal administration processthat is implemented on one or more computers in one or more networksaccording to one embodiment of the invention. As shown in FIG. 10, whena trainer receives a request for training in step 8510, the trainer mayeither create a new journal in training mode as shown in step 8520; orreplicate an existing journal setting to create a new journal intraining mode, as shown in step 8530. In one embodiment, the trainer maybe a staff member of the company running the journal system. Trainingsessions may be provided in person, or through web applications such asWebEx. The trainer then in step 8535 invites journaladministrator/service managers or other users for training, and thenprovides training to journal users in step 8540. When step 8535 isexecuted, the publishing system also sends a notification email to thejournal administration/service manager in step 8550. Then, in step 8560,the trainer decides whether the journal configuration can be madeoperational. If no, then in step 8620 the trainer deletes the journal intraining mode and the process ends. The publishing system also sends anotification email to users configured regarding journal deletion instep 8630, and the training journal is deleted based on configurationsettings in step 8650. An authorized user can also choose to extend thedate for journal deletion, in step 8640

If the trainer does not think the journal configuration can be madelive, then in step 8570 the trainer decides whether to clean up thejournal. If yes, the trainer performs journal clean up in step 8580 andthe process moves to step 8590. If no, then the process directly movesto step 8590, where the trainer checks if the training journal is anexisting journal. If yes, the trainer in step 8600 replicates thejournal setting to live environment. If no, the trainer creates a newjournal in live environment in step 8610 and transfers/replicatesjournal settings the settings of the training journal to the newjournal.

After steps 8600 or 8610, the publishing system either removes the testtag from the live environment in step 8730 and sends a notificationemail to configured users regarding the test journal going live in step8750, or persists journal setting changes in step 8740 and publishes thesetting changes across journal in step 8760. The process then ends.

In one embodiment, the service manager may receive requests to changejournal settings to training, as shown in step 8660. Or, he/she mayreceive notifications from the publishing system to participate intrainings. If that happens, the service manager may in step 8670 executethe following in parallel for the training journal: workflow setup fortraining, setup/amend rules, set up templates, configuration, useradministration and user management and access. The process then moves tostep 8540 for the trainer and to step 8730 or 8740 for the system.

FIG. 11 schematically depicts a journals leaving process that isimplemented on one or more computers in one or more networks accordingto one embodiment of the invention. The journals leaving process may betriggered when a journal leaves the publishing system. As shown in FIG.11, the system administrator/chief editor in step 9010 selects a journalto be removed. Then, in step 9020, the journal contract is checked, andthe system retention policy is checked in step 9030 for conformity.Next, the system administrator/chief editor in step 9040 notifieseditorial stakeholders about the journal migration. On confirmation ofall of the above, the system administrator/chief editor in step 9050sets an end date for submission into the journal. The system in step9060 records the end date. When a user makes a submission/or submits arevision in step 9180, the publishing system in step 9190 checks if thesubmission date is passed. If no, the process moves to submission/peerreview in step 9200. If yes, then the user is notified of journalmigration/deletion and end of submission in step 9210.

In one embodiment, the system administrator/chief editor may initiate aninitial export process when the time is close to the submission enddate, as shown in step 9070. If that process is initiated, thepublishing system in step 9100 executes an iterative process to createan export package of journal/user specific files, journal/user specificmetadata and files uploaded as part of review/decision. Then, in step9110, the system captures journal history/status.

In another embodiment, the system administrator/chief editor mayinitiate a final export process on final disposition of a submission, asshown in step 9080. If that process is initiated, the publishing systemin step 9120 executes an iterative process to create export package ofjournal/user specific files, journal/user specific metadata and filesuploaded as part of review/decision. Then, in step 9130, the systemcaptures journal history/status, and in step 9170, only limited accessis allowed to the journal based on user permissions.

In yet another embodiment, the system administrator/chief editor mayinitiate soft/hard delete of the journal based on journal configuration,as shown in step 9090. If that process is initiated, the publishingsystem in step 9140 deletes journal information and retains userprofiles in step 9150. The system also maintains workflow history as perconfiguration in step 9160.

The invention described above is operational with general purpose orspecial purpose computing system environments or configurations.Examples of well known computing systems, environments, and/orconfigurations that may be suitable for use with the invention include,but are not limited to: personal computers, server computers, hand-heldor laptop devices, smart phones such as iPhones™, tablet devices such asiPads™, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set topboxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers,mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include anyof the above systems or devices, and the like. It should be understoodthat references to a ‘computer’ in this specification—for example, aneditorial computer or a system computer—include references to bothphysical and logical computers, where a logical computer may reside inone or more physical computers, one or more logical computers may residein one physical computer, and logical computers may be part of a cloudcomputing system. It should also be understood that references to a‘database’ in this specification—for example a journal database and anon-sister journal database—include references to databases that may bephysically distinct or logically distinct (for example, virtualdatabases).

Components of the inventive computer system may include, but are notlimited to, a processing unit, a system memory, and a system bus thatcouples various system components including the system memory to theprocessing unit.

The computer system typically includes a variety of non-transitorycomputer-readable media. Computer-readable media can be any availablemedia that can be accessed by the computer and includes both volatileand nonvolatile media, and removable and non-removable media. By way ofexample, and not limitation, computer-readable media may comprisecomputer storage media and communication media. Computer storage mediamay store information such as computer-readable instructions, datastructures, program modules or other data. Computer storage mediaincludes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or othermemory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or otheroptical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic diskstorage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which canbe used to store the desired information and which can accessed by thecomputer. Communication media typically embodies computer-readableinstructions, data structures, program modules or other data in amodulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transportmechanism and includes any information delivery media. The term“modulated data signal” means a signal that has one or more of itscharacteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode informationin the signal. By way of example, and not limitation, communicationmedia includes wired media such as a wired network or direct-wiredconnection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and otherwireless media. Combinations of the any of the above should also beincluded within the scope of computer-readable media.

The computer system may operate in a networked environment using logicalconnections to one or more remote computers. The remote computer may bea personal computer, a server, a router, a network PC, a peer device orother common network node, and typically includes many or all of theelements described above relative to the computer. The logicalconnections depicted in include one or more local area networks (LAN)and one or more wide area networks (WAN), but may also include othernetworks. Such networking environments are commonplace in offices,enterprise-wide computer networks, intranets and the Internet.

For ease of exposition, not every step or element of the presentinvention is described herein as part of software or computer system,but those skilled in the art will recognize that each step or elementmay have a corresponding computer system or software component. Suchcomputer systems and/or software components are therefore enabled bydescribing their corresponding steps or elements (that is, theirfunctionality), and are within the scope of the present invention. Inaddition, various steps and/or elements of the present invention may bestored in a non-transitory storage medium, and selectively executed by aprocessor.

The foregoing components of the present invention described as making upthe various elements of the invention are intended to be illustrativeand not restrictive. Many suitable components that would perform thesame or similar functions as the components described are intended to beembraced within the scope of the invention. Such other components caninclude, for example, components developed after the development of thepresent invention.

What is claimed is:
 1. An online journal recommendation system,comprising: one or more editorial computers connected to a multi-nodenetwork, said editorial computers comprising one or more programcontrolled data processors configured to: receive an author-submittedarticle for publication via said multi-node network; access journaldatabase records, wherein said database records include informationassociated with previously submitted articles and corresponding authoruser profiles; create a first fingerprint of a plurality of publishedarticles in a particular journal from the journal database records;create a second fingerprint of the author-submitted article; compare thefirst fingerprint with the second fingerprint to determine whether theparticular journal has articles with a high similarity to theauthor-submitted article; recommend the particular journal to the authoras a potential journal for submission of the author-submitted articlewhen the particular journal has published articles which have a highsimilarity; and when the author-submitted article is rejected from theparticular journal: receive a first input, from the author of thesubmitted article for publication, comprising a request to initiate awaterfall process for the rejected author-submitted article, provide afirst notification of the first input to a receiving journal device,receive a confirmation to proceed from the receiving journal device,transform the rejected author-submitted article into a waterfalledarticle, transmit data comprising a submission to the receiving journaldevice, wherein the submission comprises the waterfalled article andmetadata, receive a transmission from the receiving journal device,wherein the transmission comprises a rejection of the submission and anoption to continue the waterfall process with a second receivingjournal, and when an affirmation of the option to continue the waterfallprocess with the second receiving journal is received: transmit one ormore journal recommendations to the author of the submitted article forpublication, wherein the one or more journal recommendations compriseone or more potential receiving journals that contain articles having ahigh similarity with the waterfalled article, and receive a second inputfrom the author of the submitted article for publication comprising aselection of the second receiving journal and forward the waterfalledarticle to the second selected journal.
 2. The journal recommendationsystem of claim 1, wherein one or more of said editorial computersselect one or more submitted articles and process the selected articlesas a group with shared properties.
 3. The online journal recommendationsystem of claim 2, wherein one or more of said editorial computerscreate a group template for the selected articles.
 4. The online journalrecommendation system of claim 1, wherein said one or more programcontrolled data processors are further configured to convert one or moresubmitted articles to a Common Readable Format.
 5. The online journalrecommendation system of claim 4, wherein said Common Readable Format isHypertext Markup Language or Extensible Markup Language.
 6. The onlinejournal recommendation system of claim 1, wherein one or more of theeditorial computers automatically assigns editors according to rules andsettings of the journal recommendation system.
 7. The online journalrecommendation system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the editorialcomputers search for reviewers by taking into account the author'spreferred reviewers.
 8. The online journal recommendation system ofclaim 1, wherein annotations to the author-submitted article are made inthe author-submitted article.
 9. A method of recommending an onlinejournal, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more editorialcomputers connected to a multi-node network, an author-submitted articlefor publication via said multi-node network; accessing, by the one ormore editorial computers, journal database records, wherein saiddatabase records include information associated with previouslysubmitted articles and corresponding author user profiles; creating, bythe one or more editorial computers, a first fingerprint of a pluralityof published articles in a particular journal from the journal databaserecords; creating, by the one or more editorial computers, a secondfingerprint of the author-submitted article; comparing, by the one ormore editorial computers, the first fingerprint with the secondfingerprint to determine whether the particular journal has articleswith a high similarity to the author-submitted article; recommending, bythe one or more editorial computers, the particular journal to theauthor as a potential journal for submission of the author-submittedarticle when the particular journal has published articles which have ahigh similarity; and when the author-submitted article is rejected fromthe particular journal: receiving, by the one or more editorialcomputers, a first input, from the author of the submitted article forpublication, comprising a request to initiate a waterfall process forthe rejected author-submitted article, providing, by the one or moreeditorial computers, a first notification of the first input to areceiving journal device, receiving, by the one or more editorialcomputers, a confirmation to proceed from the receiving journal device,transforming, by the one or more editorial computers, the rejectedauthor-submitted article into a waterfalled article, transmitting, bythe one or more editorial computers, data comprising a submission to thereceiving journal device, wherein the submission comprises thewaterfalled article and metadata, receiving, by the one or moreeditorial computers, a transmission from the receiving journal device,wherein the transmission comprises a rejection of the submission and anoption to continue the waterfall process with a second receivingjournal, and when an affirmation of the option to continue the waterfallprocess with the second receiving journal is received: transmitting, bythe one or more editorial computers, one or more journal recommendationsto the author of the submitted article for publication, wherein the oneor more journal recommendations comprise one or more potential receivingjournals that contain articles having a high similarity with thewaterfalled article, and receiving, by the one or more editorialcomputers, a second input from the author of the submitted article forpublication comprising a selection of the second receiving journal andforward the waterfalled article to the second selected journal.
 10. Themethod of claim 9, further comprising selecting, by the one or moreeditorial computers, one or more submitted articles and processing, bythe one or more editorial computers, the selected articles as a groupwith shared properties.
 11. The method of claim 10, further comprisingcreating, by the one or more editorial computers, a group template forthe selected articles.
 12. The method of claim 9, converting, by the oneor more editorial computers, one or more submitted articles to a CommonReadable Format.
 13. The method of claim 12, wherein said CommonReadable Format is Hypertext Markup Language or Extensible MarkupLanguage.
 14. The method of claim 9, further comprising automaticallyassigning, by the one or more editorial computers, editors according torules and settings.
 15. The method of claim 9, further comprisingsearching, by the one or more editorial computers, for reviewers bytaking into account the author's preferred reviewers.
 16. The method ofclaim 9, wherein annotations to the author-submitted article are made inthe author-submitted article.